Quantum Chaos Theory

[becomingagodo]

I am really annoyed, I wasted like five pounds on a book about Riemann Zeta Hypothesis. See, the book is mostly about the work of people like Littlewood and others and it doesn't mention quantum choas theory. Reading through the various new attempt at proving the Riemann hypothesis seems to use quantum mechanics.
What the hell is even quantum chaos theory?
How does matrix machanics and non linear equation go together?
Isn't their serious problems with quantum mathematics?
Where will becomingagodo get his million dollars now?
To tell the truth, I don't even like quantum mechanics and have no clue of what quantum mechanics is. However, the Riemann hypothesis has become more interesting to me, I like the word chaos.
I'm skeptical about quantum mechanics proving the Riemann hypothesis, however some people are saying they will prove the Riemann hypothesis in the next few years.
http://www.timetoeternity.com/time_space_light/prime_time.htm
How depressing?

Plus their saying the proof can come any day now. Isn't quantum mechanics that stupid theory with the dead and alive cat? Seriously, if quantum mechanics is behind prime numbers then it would be so depressing.

Don't the idea of chaos, quantum mechanics and numbers contradict each other?
How can a number be chaotic or quantum, it makes no sense. Can someone explain?

 

[Ziggurat]

Don't the idea of chaos, quantum mechanics and numbers contradict each other?

Nope. I'm skeptical that they can prove the Riemann's conjecture, but chaos, quantum mechanics, and numbers are not in the least bit contradictory.

How can a number be chaotic or quantum, it makes no sense. Can someone explain?

Numbers cannot be chaotic or quantum, but that's not the issue. Equations describing quantum systems (or classical systems) can be chaotic. Chaos, in the mathematical sense, doesn't mean quite what you probably think it means.

 

[jsfisher]

I don't even like quantum mechanics and have no clue of what quantum mechanics is.

Fundamental mathematical logic escapes you, doesn't it?

 

[Complexity]

BAGO - I'm not going to answer any of your questions.

You are not worthy.

You are not ready.

I'm glad you like the word 'chaos'. I think you like the way it makes your mouth feel when you speak it. You don't have a clue what it means, but you like the way it makes you feel.

I think you're this way with all of the terms and names of mathematicians that you like. No understanding, just an appeal to your senses and your not-yet-justified self esteem.

Anyone who can say, "I don't even like X and have no clue of what X is." does not deserve to have an answer about what X is.

Any information that people could offer you about quantum mechanics or any other topic that you mentioned would be unsatisfying given your level of mathematical prowess.

Also, since you hate, physics, knowing nothing about it, why should any of us attempt to educate you?

Casting pearls before swine.

Work on factoring polynomials, learn Cramer's Rule even if you think you shouldn't have to, and lose nearly all of your pride.

Don't try to run in the Olympics before you can roll over.

 

[becomingagodo]

Anyone who can say, "I don't even like X and have no clue of what X is." does not deserve to have an answer about what X is.

I know about the various expriment of quantum mechanics, like the EPR, Double split test, even the one inspired by mayonaise. It makes no sense at all, that why I don't like quantum mechanics. So I have got a reason too hate quantum mechanics, god doesn't play dice.

I think you're this way with all of the terms and names of mathematicians that you like. No understanding, just an appeal to your senses and your not-yet-justified self esteem.

Proberly, however doesn't having a cool name make mathematics better. Like how they change the differential coefficient to derivative.

Don't try to run in the Olympics before you can roll over.

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

Fundamental mathematical logic escapes you, doesn't it?

Hey, I know godels work.

Equations describing quantum systems (or classical systems) can be chaotic.

Okay.

You don't have a clue what it means, but you like the way it makes you feel.

Chaos is something that can produce various extremely different outcomes with only a slight change in conditions i.e. the butterfly effect.

Complexity you need more imagination, and thats why you will never solve the Riemann Hypothesis.

Work on factoring polynomials, learn Cramer's Rule even if you think you shouldn't have to, and lose nearly all of your pride.

Thats so last week.

 

[drkitten]

It makes no sense at all, that why I don't like quantum mechanics.

It's not clear from your prior postings that you are qualified to judge whether or not it makes sense. In particular, you appear to not be familiar with the mass of experimental data that QM explains and that no other theory dies. You also appear not to be familiar with the mathematics that is part and parcel of the explanation.

Proberly, however doesn't having a cool name make mathematics better. Like how they change the differential coefficient to derivative.

Good example here. A "derivative" is a function, not a coefficient (which is generally a real number). A "differential coefficient" is usually the value of the derivative at a specified point. That mathematicians are capable of thinking more clearly and precisely about this point than you are is hardly a problem of theirs now, is it?

 

[becomingagodo]

In particular, you appear to not be familiar with the mass of experimental data that QM explains and that no other theory dies. You also appear not to be familiar with the mathematics that is part and parcel of the explanation.

I know that Feyman and Dirac theories explain the experimental data, however didn't Feyman admit he doesn't understand quantum mechanics. I remeber a T.V. program called Atom, on the program he quotes Feyman saying he said to his students that he didn't understand his own theory.

A "derivative" is a function, not a coefficient (which is generally a real number). A "differential coefficient" is usually the value of the derivative at a specified point. That mathematicians are capable of thinking more clearly and precisely about this point than you are is hardly a problem of theirs now, is it?

In the book calculus made easy by Martin Gardner he said that they change the name from differential coefficent to derivative. I'm not saying your incorrect, as your not, however I under the impression from the calculus made easy book that they change derivative into differential coefficient and made differential coefficient mean something else.

 

[HawkeyeMD]

You spend a lot of time whipping yourself into a state of high dudgeon over perceived slights, don't you?

It seems that your modus operandi is to glom on to some complicated subject with a lot of big words in it, spend next to no time actually learning about it, and then post an outraged rant about it with a bunch of inaccurate statements, using terms you do not understand, and referencing websites which, while possibly accurate, are not intended to be full scholarly discussions but rather simplified explanations for the layman. When someone does try to explain something to you, you then argue with them using those same terms-you-don't-understand.

Is that a fair and accurate representation of your plan? What is your point in asking any of this? And why do you bother with it if everything you try to learn about is "depressing"?

I tried to answer your previous question in all good faith, but now I see my efforts were misplaced.

 

[becomingagodo]

You spend a lot of time whipping yourself into a state of high dudgeon over perceived slights, don't you?

Do you dream?
On a more serious note. I just like annoying people, espically Complexity. It is like some people smoke or drink alchol and some people don't.

It seems that your modus operandi is to glom on to some complicated subject with a lot of big words in it, spend next to no time actually learning about it, and then post an outraged rant about it with a bunch of inaccurate statements, using terms you do not understand, and referencing websites which, while possibly accurate, are not intended to be full scholarly discussions but rather simplified explanations for the layman. When someone does try to explain something to you, you then argue with them using those same terms-you-don't-understand.

All I wanted to know is "Is the Riemann hypothesis going to be proven in the next few years using quantum chaos theory?"
It is a simple question. And yet complexity just says that I am not worthy and not ready.

Is that a fair and accurate representation of your plan? What is your point in asking any of this? And why do you bother with it if everything you try to learn about is "depressing"?

I tried to answer your previous question in all good faith, but now I see my efforts were misplaced.

How does babies vision have anything to do with mathematics?

 

[Jimbo07]

I know about the various expriment of quantum mechanics, like the EPR, Double split test, even the one inspired by mayonaise. It makes no sense at all, that why I don't like quantum mechanics. So I have got a reason too hate quantum mechanics, god doesn't play dice.

Misunderstanding is not a reason to hate. Is this how you live your life?

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

but useless in the face of determined ignorance.

Complexity you need more imagination, and thats why you will never solve the Riemann Hypothesis.

Stupid, unimaginative Complexity! The rest of us solved it yesterday, but poor old unimaginative Complexity is going to be noodling over it forever...

Thats so last week.

Where knowledge operates in 'internet time'...

 

[becomingagodo]

Misunderstanding is not a reason to hate. Is this how you live your life?

Well, it only applies to knowledge.

but useless in the face of determined ignorance.

Knowledge has limits

The rest of us solved it yesterday, but poor old unimaginative Complexity is going to be noodling over it forever...

When I solve the Riemann Hypothesis, I will ba making the jokes then. The point is complexity must be doing something wrong, ten years and no proof.

Where knowledge operates in 'internet time'...

You can learn calculus in twenty minautes, so what is possible in a week. Only god knows

 

[Yllanes]

Isn't their serious problems with quantum mathematics?
[...]
To tell the truth, I don't even like quantum mechanics and have no clue of what quantum mechanics is. However, the Riemann hypothesis has become more interesting to me, I like the word chaos.
[...]
Isn't quantum mechanics that stupid theory with the dead and alive cat? Seriously, if quantum mechanics is behind prime numbers then it would be so depressing.

I know about the various expriment of quantum mechanics, like the EPR, Double split test, even the one inspired by mayonaise. It makes no sense at all, that why I don't like quantum mechanics.
[...]
So I have got a reason too hate quantum mechanics, god doesn't play dice.

Hint: That tone puts people off replying to you.

Quantum mechanics is behind almost all of the physics of the 20th century. Solid state physics, lasers, nuclear physics, etc. and all of their applications are based on quantum mechanics. It's not a theory about a 'dead and alive cat'. You seem to hate physics for some reason (I can understand someone not being interested, but you are definitively hostile). You should know that a great part of the mathematics of the 20th century was motivated by quantum mechanics and its derivative theories (like QFT). Functional analysis (generalised functions, Hilbert spaces, etc.), for example.

I know that Feyman and Dirac theories explain the experimental data, however didn't Feyman admit he doesn't understand quantum mechanics. I remeber a T.V. program called Atom, on the program he quotes Feyman saying he said to his students that he didn't understand his own theory.

That's tongue in cheek. He means quantum mechanics is against everyday intuition and sometimes the physical interpretation of some results is not easy to picture. This is not the same as 'not understanding' quantum mechanics. The proof that we do understand it is that we have been able to build nuclear reactors, lasers, etc. and they work. On a more fundamental level, we make precise quantitative predictions and the experiments confirm them.

 

[Jimbo07]

When I solve the Riemann Hypothesis, I will ba making the jokes then. The point is complexity must be doing something wrong, ten years and no proof.

It's possible that Complexity is making some sort of fundamental mistake. It won't be a peon like me who catches it, though...

You can learn calculus in twenty minautes, so what is possible in a week. Only god knows

Good job! It took me years...

 

[becomingagodo]

He means quantum mechanics is against everyday intuition and sometimes the physical interpretation of some results is not easy to picture. This is not the same as 'not understanding' quantum mechanics.

Okay. It is really hard to tell when Feyman is trying to be funny or serious.

Hint: That tone puts people off replying to you.

Tone, okay I will try and tone myself down.

You should know that a great part of the mathematics of the 20th century was motivated by quantum mechanics and its derivative theories (like QFT). Functional analysis (generalised functions, Hilbert spaces, etc.), for example.

I was under the impression that mathematics is lacking behind in quantum mechanics.

Good job! It took me years...

You should study harder. Alternatively watch this video http://youtube.com/watch?v=EX_is9LzFSY

It's possible that Complexity is making some sort of fundamental mistake.

No imagination.

 

[Yllanes]

I was under the impression that mathematics is lacking behind in quantum mechanics.

Take a loook at a book by Von Neumann called The Mathematical Foundation of Quantum Mechanics and tell me what you think.

When quantum mechanics was being developed it required lots of mathematics that simply didn't exist. The most typical example is perhaps Dirac's delta 'function', which was later made rigourous in the context of distributions or generalised functions. Some people kept introducing new ideas and new mathematical concepts that were at first in somewhat shaky ground. Later, people like Von Neumann or Wigner developed a fully consistent and rigourous mathematical theory.

 

[Jimbo07]

You should study harder.

Yeah, but I'm so stupid and lazy... if only there were some sort of twenty minute calculus course, I wouldn't have to bother studying at all!

 

[HawkeyeMD]

Okay. It is really hard to tell when Feyman is trying to be funny or serious.

It's not that hard. Richard Feynman was not a man overly afflicted with humility, and he did love jokes, but when he said he didn't understand his own theory he was engaging in a bit of hyperbole. When you understand everything that Dr. Feynman did understand about quantum mechanics, then maybe you can start a discussion about what doesn't work about it.

As an aside, it took Feynman a lot longer than ten years to do his Nobel-prize-winning work.

Tone, okay I will try and tone myself down.

That would be helpful, yes.

I was under the impression that mathematics is lacking behind in quantum mechanics.

Then, similarly to your misunderstanding of neuroanatomy in the other thread, you should learn something about it. Alternatively, stop acting all offended when others correct your misperceptions. And the silly quotations out of context and useless aphorisms like "knowledge has limits" do not make you look profound. They make you look like someone who not only does not know, but does not want to know, about the subject they are discussing.

You should study harder. Alternatively watch this video http://youtube.com/watch?v=EX_is9LzFSY

No imagination.

Now your source is YouTube? Honestly, now.

Neuroanatomy and its relation to infant visual acuity has very little to do with mathematics. The relationship of both subjects to you is that you pretend to know more than you do about them. Since you concede that your main purpose is just to annoy people, you can mark today's task down as completed and move on, mm'kay?

 

[HawkeyeMD]

Yeah, but I'm so stupid and lazy... if only there were some sort of twenty minute calculus course, I wouldn't have to bother studying at all!

Yeah, dangit. Why didn't someone tell me about that when I was taking it??!?

Oh, right. No YouTube yet.

 

[Yllanes]

As an aside, it took Feynman a lot longer than ten years to do his Nobel-prize-winning work.

And more than 20 minutes to learn calculus...

 

[becomingagodo]

Yeah, but I'm so stupid and lazy... if only there were some sort of twenty minute calculus course, I wouldn't have to bother studying at all!

If only their were hot asian chicks in your class, then you would study HARDER.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0g4tCpryGkA&NR=1
Note: Does not contain porn

Take a loook at a book by Von Neumann called The Mathematical Foundation of Quantum Mechanics and tell me what you think.

I will see how cheep it is on amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Foundations-Quantum-Mechanics-Mathematics/dp/0486435172
The Von Neumann book is too expensive, however this one looks cheep. About ten pounds.

People buy books for twenty pounds and then sell them for five pounds. My mind boggles, wouldn't you just keep the book.